Posted: January 30th, 2022

Effects of Television Commercial Repetition

Journal of Shopper Analysis, Inc. The Results of Tv Industrial Repetition on Cognitive Response and Message Acceptance Creator(s): George E. Belch Reviewed work(s): Supply: Journal of Shopper Analysis, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Jun. , 1982), pp. 56-65 Revealed by: The College of Chicago Press Steady URL: http://www. jstor. org/secure/2488937 . Accessed: 17/08/2012 06:48 Your use of the JSTOR archive signifies your acceptance of the Phrases & Circumstances of Use, obtainable at . http://www. jstor. org/web page/data/about/insurance policies/phrases. jsp .
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps students, researchers, and college students uncover, use, and construct upon a variety of content material in a trusted digital archive. We use data know-how and instruments to extend productiveness and facilitate new types of scholarship. For extra details about JSTOR, please contact [email protected] org. . The College of Chicago Press and Journal of Shopper Analysis, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, protect and lengthen entry to Journal of Shopper Analysis. http://www. jstor. org The Tv Industrial Repetition on Cognitive Response and Message Acceptance Results of
GEORGEE. BELCH* The cognitiveeffects of advertisingrepetitionare examined by consideringthe impactof three ranges of TV commercialexposure withina one-hour program. Attitudesand buy intentionswere not affected by message repetition, though cognitive responses grew to become extra destructive as publicity frequencyincreased. The connection between cognitiveresponses and the message acceptance measures was comparatively constantacross the three publicity ranges. results of repeated publicity to a persuasive communication have lengthy been of curiosity to social psychologists and entrepreneurs.

Nevertheless, analysis in regards to the results of persuasive message repetition on cognitive processes has been restricted in each social psychology and advertising. In social psychology, a lot of the repetition researchhas been performedin contexts thatdo not contain communication. For instance, Zajonc’s (1968) concept of mere publicity means that an individual’s perspective towards a stimulus is positively relatedto publicity frequency(an impact Zajonc attributedto the pleasantness related to listening to an increasinglyfamiliar stimulus).
Nevertheless, mere publicity concept could have restricted relevance to the attitudinal results of persuasivemessage repetition,as this mannequin applies primarilyto easy nonassociative stimuli, comparable to nonsense syllables or Turkish alphabet characters. Persuasive messages are typically extra advanced stimuli and, within the case of advertisingmessages, the main focus is mostly on objects or concepts presentedin the message ratherthan on the advertisementitself. Except for a examine by Cacioppo and Petty (1979), the cognitive and affective results of repeated publicity to persuasive communicationshave generatedsurprisinglylittle researchin social psychology.
Attemptsto determinethe results of advertisingmessage repetitionhave appearedfrequentlyin the marketingliterature (Craig, Sternthal, and Leavitt 1976; Grass and Wal- The lace 1969; Mitchell and Olson 1977; Ray and Sawyer 1971; Sawyer 1973; Silk and Vavra 1974; Winter 1973). Nevertheless, most researchinto the consequences of advertisingrepetition has targeted primarilyon end result measuressuch as recall, perspective,and purchaseintention,ratherthanconsideringthe underlying processes that may form and decide response to an advertisingmessage following a number of exposures.
Whereas data of the repetition operate for a persuasivemessage with respect to those end result variables is vital, the cognitive results of message repetition should even be consideredif perception is to be gained in understandinga recipient’sreactionsto a message following a number of exposures. The aim of this investigation is to check the consequences of repeated publicity to a persuasive communication by analyzing the impression of tv business repetition on cognitive processing.
Cognitive response measures (Greenwald 1968; Petty, Ostrom, and Brock 1981; Wright 1973) in addition to traditionaloutcome measures comparable to recall, perspective, and buy intention are used to look at the consequences of a number of message exposures on recipients. This examine additionally examines modifications within the relationship of cognitive response mediators to measures of message acceptanceresultingfrom multipleexposuresto a business message. RELEVANT LITERATURE *George E. Belch is AssistantProfessorof Advertising,Faculty of Enterprise Administration,San Diego State College, San Diego, CA 92182.
The creator needs to acknowledge the monetary help supplied by a doctoraldissertationgrant from the AmericanMarketingAssociation and by researchgrantsfrom the MarketingScience Instituteand the College of California, Los Angeles. Appreciationis additionally expressed to Wealthy Lutz and James Bettmanfor their feedback on an earlierversion of this manuscript and to 2 anonymousreviewers for his or her insightful feedback and suggestions. The results of promoting repetition on end result measures comparable to perspective and buy intention have been examined in a numberof research.
Winter(1973) discovered that publicity to the commercials decreased the space between attitudes towards the advertisedbrand and the best model. Nevertheless, diminishingreturnswere discovered, because the greatestamountof attitudechange occurredduringthe first two exposures. Additionally, publicity had a significanteffect solely on individualsinitially unfamiliarwith the advertisedbrand 56 ? JOURNAL OF CONSUMERRESEARCH* Vol. 9 zero June 1982 EFFECTSOF TV COMMERCIAL REPETITION and it was positively associated to model familiarity for the comparatively new brandonly. Ginter(1974) discovered that both total perspective change nor model selection was affected by the numberof message exposures. Null results of promoting repetition had been additionally present in a examine by Mitchell and Olson (1977): repetition of two kinds of print adverts had no impact on perception energy, perspective, or purchaseintention. A number of research have examined the consequences of a number of publicity together with diversified promoting appeals. Ray and Sawyer (1971) discovered that repetitionof six soft-sell “nongrabber” advertisementsproduced will increase in buy intention, whereas intention was not increasedby repetition of hard-sell “grabber” adverts.
Related outcomes had been discovered in-a examine by Silk and Vavra (1974), who examined reactions to hard-sell and soft-sell radio commercials. Gorn and Goldberg (1980) examined the consequences of repeated commercialexposure on eight- to ten-year-oldboys by various the numberof commercials seen within the context of a half-hourprogram. Topics seen the commercials eitherone, three, or 5 occasions. Nevertheless, a few of the multiple-exposure situation topics seen the identical commercialrepeatedly,whereas otherssaw a differentcommercial for the brand new brandeach time.
Gorn and Goldbergfound that moderateexposure (threerepetitions)resultedin the very best degree of brandpreference, providedthat the identical business was not seen every time. 57 Cacioppoand Petty (1980) examined the viability of the twostage cognitive response mannequin in two different repetitionexperiments. Within the first experiment, the cognitive response measureand a persistingmeasureof attitudechange (taken one week later) had been affected within the curvilinear method prompt by the two-factor mannequin.
Within the second experiment, they predicted-and found-an interactionbetween publicity frequency and the character of the argumentsused on a persisting attitudechange measure. Robust argumentbased messages grew to become extra persuasive with repetition; weak argumentmessages grew to become much less persuasivewith repetition; and novel messages grew to become extra, then much less persuasive with repeatedexposure. Calder and Sternthal (1980) measured cognitive responses after commercials for 2 merchandise;one product and was unfamiliarto the contributors one was well-known.
They discovered that elevated frequency of publicity led primarilyto extra complete thoughtsfor the unfamiliarproductand to an increasein destructive thoughtsfor the well-knownproduct. TheoreticalAccounts of RepetitionEffects Whereas a number of theoreticalexplanationshave been supplied for repetitioneffects, the one which appearsto be most congenial for advertisingmessage repetition is a few type of Berlyne’s (1970) two-factor concept. Berlyne proposed a nonmonotonic inverted U-curve relationship between familiarity and liking.
In accordance with Berlyne, two separate and opposing psychological processes, constructive habituation and tedium, operatesimultaneously. Optimistic habituationis much like a discount in response competitors: publicity ends in a reductionin arousaldue to uncertaintyand battle and thus will increase liking. Tedium additionally will increase with publicity and ends in a much less pleasurablefeeling towards the stimulus. Berlyne means that the relative strengthof every factorvaries as a functionof exposureto the stimulus, with the habituationprocess having the greaterimpact on have an effect on initially, whereas tedium and disliking happen at greater publicity ranges.
Stimulus complexity and sequence heterogeneity sluggish the constructive habituationprocess; thus tedium happens at greater exposurelevels for advanced, variedstimuli and at a comparatively low frequency for easy, nonvaried stimuli. An extension of Berlyne’s two-factor concept was proposed by Stang (1973, 1975), who argued that repeated to exposureprovidesmore alternative learnaboutthe stimulus and that as a result of this studying is rewarding, constructive have an effect on outcomes. Nevertheless, continued repetition past that mandatory for preliminary learningleads to boredomor satiation, and repeated publicity in the end produces destructive have an effect on towards the stimulus.
An analogous explanationfor repetitioneffects was proposed by Cacioppo and Petty’s (1979) two-stage attitudemodification mannequin. They argue that repetition of the message to providesrecipientswith extra alternative elaboratecognitively upon message content material and to comprehend the favorable implicationsand cogency of the argumentsused within the mes- Repetition and Cognitive Response McCullough and Ostrom(1974) examined the consequences of repeatedexposure by having topics view 5 comparable adverts that used the identical fundamental enchantment, however differed within the order and phrasing of the message arguments.
Cognitive responses had been measuredimmediatelyafter every publicity to the commercials. They discovered that repetition resulted in a significantpositive impact on cognitive response exercise, as subjectslisted extra constructive thoughtsand fewer destructive ideas with repeatedexposure. Cacioppo and Petty (1979) examined the consequences of repeating messages that had been both according to or contraryto recipients’ preliminary attitudeon cognitive response exercise. They discovered that agreementwith the message place elevated after which decreased as publicity frequency elevated.
The cognitive response patternfollowed an identical curvilinear relationship as favorable ideas confirmed a rise adopted by a lower, whereas counterarguments confirmed a big lower adopted by a rise. Evaluation of the cognitive response measures additionally revealed that the counter-attitudinal message evoked a greaternumber of topic-relevantthoughts and fewer neutralor irrelevant ideas than the proattitudinal message. Cacioppo and Petty interpretedthese outcomes when it comes to a two-stage attitudemodificationprocess.
Accordingto this mannequin, repetitionof the message providesmore alternative for cognitive elaborationupon the precise argumentsand realizationof theirfavorableimplications. At excessive publicity ranges, nonetheless, tedium and/orreactancelead to an assault in opposition to the message by the receiver. 58 sage. Nevertheless, within the excessive publicity situations, it is rather possible that tedium and/orreactancewill develop, resulting in a decline in have an effect on. Sawyer (1981) has prompt that Berlyne’s two-factor concept is according to outcomes in regards to the repetition results of promoting.
Sawyer means that commercials and different persuasive messages in contexts of apparent manipulative intent could elicit a majority of defensive responses-such as counterarguments and supply derogations-at the outset. As soon as expressed, these defensive responses could dissipate and permit different, extra goal evaluations and associations to happen. Nevertheless, excessive publicity ranges would in the end end in satiation and destructive reactionsto the message.
The primary query of curiosity is whetherthe inverted Ucurve predictions supplied by Berlyne’s two-factor concept and Cacioppo and Petty’s two-stage perspective modification course of mannequin happen with multipleexposuresto a tv business. A lot of the research extant have solely examined end result measures of effectiveness, providinglittle perception into the cognitive processing that underliesthese reactions. The research which have utilized cognitive response measures have produceddivergent outcomes, primarilybecause of the methodologicaland proceduraldifferences amongst them.
Will probably be troublesome to reach at any generalizationsconcerning the consequences of persuasive message repetition on cognitive processing till extra empiricalevidence is produced. The firsthypothesisto be examined on this studyconcernsthe results of commercialmessage repetitionon cognitive responseand message acceptance: Hello: The favorabilityof message acceptanceand cognitive responses to a tv business will increase with reasonable ranges of publicity, then declines following excessive ranges of publicity. THEJOURNAL CONSUMER OF RESEARCH curring through the first few exposures to it.
Krugman’s (1972) notion of solely three message exposures being ample to stimulatea shopping for choice is relevanthere. In accordance with Krugman, the very first publicity (outlined as actualattentionby the patron)is dominatedby a “What’s it? ” sort of response, whereby the message recipient attemptsto outline and understandthe advertisingstimulus and to find out whether or not the message is of any use or curiosity. Krugmansuggests that a lot of the wanted discount in response competitors happens throughout this primary publicity and that the second exposureevokes a extra evaluative and private “What of it? response, which determinesthe message’s final skill to influence. If any significant response occurred earlier, the third publicity then acts principally as a reminderto the recipient. The third publicity can be the start of disengagement or withdrawalof attentionfrom the duty. Krugmansuggests that greater than three exposures to a message primarily repeat earlier publicity results. Whereas no direct take a look at of Krugman’s conjecturehas been carried out, there may be oblique proof that’s related.
A examine by Krugman(1968) of eye motion explorationof print adverts indicated that peak effectiveness occurred after two or three exposures, whereas Grass and Wallace’s (1969) work with CONPADD response indicatedthat from two to 1 4 exposures are optimum. Otherevidence consistentwith Krugman’s notion comes from a examine by Goldberg and Gorn (1974). Additionally, Cacioppo and Petty’s (1979) discovering that topic-irrelevant ideation elevated as publicity frequency increasedsuggests that the importantprocessing of a message takes place throughout preliminary exposures. This evaluation means that the strengthof the connection between cognitive responses and message cceptancemeasuresshould increasefrom low to moderateexposurelevels, since extra detailed and evaluativeprocessing will happen as message recipients change into acquainted with the business message. At greater publicity ranges, nonetheless, the tedium and/or reactance related to message satiation would inhibit and/or intervene with subsequent informationprocessing exercise and resultin a weakeningof the connection between cognitive response and message acceptance. Cognitive processing at greater ranges of publicity could consist ideationmore thanof relevantprocessing of topic-irrelevant and analysis of the message arguments.
The next predictionsconcerningthe results of tv business message repetition on the relevancy and mediatingrole of cognitive responses will probably be examined: H2: The frequency of topic-irrelevant ideation will increase as publicity to a tv business will increase. ‘CONPADD (ConjugatelyProgrammedAnalysis of Promoting)measures attentionto commercialsby utilizing an operantconditioningprocedure whereby topics function both a foot or hand system in orderto obtain the video and audio portionsof an commercial.
The topic’seffort thus turns into a measure of curiosity and attentionto the message in both the audio or video mode. Results of Repetition on the MediatingRole of Cognitive Response Additionally of concern on this examine are the consequences of message repetitionon the mediating relationshipbetween cognitive responses and message acceptance. The difficulty of curiosity right here is whethercognitive responseselicited afterhigh ranges of message publicity mediate affective reactionto the message. Most research of repetition results have targeted on dependentmeasures, comparable to recall, perspective, and buy intention.
In these research, the cumulativeeffects thatresult from repeatedexposure to the message could also be capturedby utilizing these “end result” measures. Nevertheless, this will not be the case for cognitive response measures. The detailed processingthat really determinesthe message recipient’sreactionto the message could happen duringinitial publicity to the commercial. Theorizingconsistent with this place has been supplied by a number of researchers. For instance, Leavitt (1974) has prompt a “robust results” speculation, which means that the effectiveness of an advert relies on the occasions oc-
EFFECTSOF TV COMMERCIAL REPETITION H3: The energy of the relationshipbetween cognitive response and message acceptance measures will increase with moderatelevels of publicity, then decreases at excessive ranges of publicity. 59 ideas. 3After completingthe cognitive responsetask, the subjectswere requested to finish a programevaluationform and a set of postmeasuresconcerning points handled in this system. After finishing these measures, subjectswere requested to respondto dependentmeasuresconcerningmessage acceptance and reception.
Two dependentmeasures of message acceptancewere used on this examine: attitudestoward utilizing the brand new brandof toothpasteand purchaseintentionsfor the brand new model. Topics’ attitudeswere measuredon 4 semantic differentialscales (good-bad, wise-foolish, favorable-unfavorable,beneficial-harmful). Topics’ responses to the 4 scales had been averaged to reach on the perspective rating used within the analyses. Intentionto strive the brand new model of toothpaste was measuredon three semantic differential scales (likely-unlikely, probable-improbable, possibleimpossible). The acquisition intention measure used within the analyses was calculated by averagingthe three scales.
Two measuresof message receptionwere employed. An unaidedrecall measurewas takenby askingthe respondents to write down down as a lot as they might rememberaboutwhat was stated within the business. The recall rating was then shaped by counting the variety of appropriate claims for the productlisted by the topic. The aided recall measureconsisted of six multiple-choicequestions aboutspecific factors within the business. METHOD Overview The information for this examine had been collected as a part of a laboratoryexperimentexaminingthe results of advertisingmessage construction and repetition on cognitive response and message acceptance(Belch 1981). A 2 x 2 x Three betweensubjectsdesign was used with sort of message (comparative or noncomparative), message-sidedness (one- or twosided), and repetition(one, three, or 5 exposures) because the components. Commercialsfor a brand new, fictitious brandof toothpaste had been produced to function message stimuli for the examine. The fundamental textual content for the 4 commercialsis proven within the Appendix. The information used to check the repetitionhypotheseswere compiled by combiningthe resultsfor the 4 remedy teams at every of the three publicity ranges.
There have been no vital interactionsbetween the message construction factorsand publicity frequencyfor the dependentvariablesof curiosity. Topics and Process The pattern consisted of 260 individuals recruitedfrom two churchgroups within the Los Angeles space. Information assortment was unfold over 10 evenings throughout a two-week interval. Upon arrival on the analysis setting, the topics got a quick statementconcerningthe reasonfor theirpresenceand had been then randomly assigned to one of many three experimental remedies getting used throughout that session.
100 topics had been assigned to each the one- and the three-exposureconditions, whereas 60 subjectswere assigned to the five-exposurecondition. The smaller cell dimension within the five-exposure situation was as a consequence of value limitations in achieving additionalsubjects. had been readto the subjectsinformingthem that Directions they had been participatingin a researchprojectevaluatingthe content material of tv programmingand that they’d be requested to judge an episode of Quincy. The themes had been additionally advised they’d be requested questions concerning the commercials.
The themes accomplished the set of premeasures, which included demographicquestions, a tv viewing profile, and premeasuresconcerning points handled in this system;the one-hourprogramcontainingthe stimulus business(s) was then proven. Immediatelyafter this system ended, the topics had been learn the cognitive response instructionsand got two minutesto record their Categorizationof Cognitive Responses The cognitive response classificationscheme used on this examine included three classes of ideas: product/mesevaluations,and sage-relatedevaluations,repetition-related evaluairrelevant ideas.
The product/message-related tions included the cognitive response classes of counterargument, supportargument,supply derogation,and curiosity ideas as outlined by Wright (1973), in addition to the classes of easy dissaffirmationsand easy affirmations describedby Beaber (1975). An additionalcategory, supply bolstering, was additionally used. This categorizationis the of constructive counterpart supply derogation. evaluations included any thought that Repetition-related addressedthe undeniable fact that the commercialwas seen a couple of time in this system.
Using the repetition-related categorizationmay be helpful in analyzing message recipients’ reactionto a number of message exposures duringa quick time interval, comparable to a one-hourprogram. Different research of repetitionandcognitive response(CacioppoandPetty 1979; Calderand Sternthal1980; McCulloughand Ostrom 1974) haven’t distinguishedthoughts reflecting reactions to the message per se from thoughtsthat is likely to be relatedto a number of exposures to the identical message.
The ultimate cognitive response class was the irrelevantcategory, which in3The cognitive response instructionsused on this examine requested the topics to record the thoughtsthat occurredto them whereas viewing the business concerning the product and their reactions through the business to what was stated concerning the productby the advertiser. 2A full descriptionof the tactic employed on this examine is out there elsewhere (Belch 1981). Within the curiosity of brevity, solely a abstract will probably be presentedhere. 60 cluded these statements that didn’t replicate any related analysis of the advertisingmessage or of the commercial itself.
A 3-judgepanel was used to code the cognitive response protocols. The judges got operationaldefinitions of the three response classes and had been trainedin the applicationof these definitions till every had a very good of understanding the coding scheme and coding job. The idea for the ultimate ranking of every cognition was a modal ratingof the threejudges. Interjudge reliabilities,calculated for every response class individually,rangedfrom zero. 69 to zero. 95. THEJOURNAL CONSUMER OF RESEARCH FIGURE AND NEGATIVE MEANNUMBERS POSITIVE OF COGNITIVE RESPONSESFOR EACHLEVEL REPETITION OF 2 (1. 77) Complete Unfavorable 1. 5 (1. 32) (1. 04) Complete Product/Message (1. 15) Associated Unfavorable 1 (. 96) Complete Optimistic RESULTS The primary speculation issues the consequences of economic message repetitionon the message acceptancemeasuresof perspective and buy intention and on the cognitive response measures. The imply attitudinal scores for the one-, three-, and five-exposureconditions had been Three. 87, four. 11, and three. 77, whereas the imply purchaseintentionscores had been Three. 24, Three. 60, and three. 33. An evaluation of variance performedon the message acceptancemeasures confirmed no significanteffect of repetition for both perspective or buy intention, F (2,257) = 1. 6 and zero. 89, respectively. The means for the numberof favorableand unfavorable thoughtsgeneratedby subjectsin every of the threeexposure situations are graphedin the Determine. four An evaluation of variance revealed that the rise within the numberof destructive ideas throughout the three ranges of repetitionis vital, F (2,257) = 9. 93, p < zero. 001. Pairwisecomparisons,utilizing a Scheffe take a look at, indicated that the distinction in destructive ideas was not vital between the one- and threeexposureconditions, however was significantbetween the threeand five-exposure situations (p < zero. 5). The Determine additionally reveals that favorablethoughtsremainedrelatively fixed throughout the three publicity ranges. An evaluation of variance for the favorable ideas measure was nonsignificant,F (2,257) = zero. 69. The resultspresentedabove are usually not supportiveof the primary speculation. The message acceptancemeasures(attitudeand buy intention) didn’t present the inverted U-curve relationshippredictedby Berlyne’s (1970) two-factortheory and Cacioppo and Petty’s two-stage perspective modification mannequin.
The cognitive response outcomes additionally fail to help the primary speculation as a result of destructive ideas elevated throughout the three ranges of publicity, whereas constructive ideas remainedrelatively fixed. One attainable explanationfor the rise within the variety of destructive ideas throughout the three ranges of repetitionis that a number of exposures to the message throughout the one-hour programmay have resultedin satiationandthe improvement ‘The favorable and unfavorable ideas measures had been derived by combining these cognitive responses that had been constructive and destructive in valence, respectively.
Thus, favorable ideas representthe sum of all supply bolstering, help arguments, and easy affirmations. Unfavorable ideas representthe sum of all counterarguments, supply derogations, easy disaffirmations,and repetition-related destructive feedback. l:; .v~~~~~~. Three ( 53) (. 63) (. 63) I zero I ,I 1 5 NUMBER OF EXPOSURES Three of reactanceby the topics. This destructive reactionto message repetition might be expressed via destructive repecontition-related thoughtson the partof multiple-exposure dition topics.
To determinewhether the rise in destructive ideas throughout the three ranges of repetition was as a result of repetition-relatedthoughts produced by the message recipients, these responses had been omitted from the composite of unfavorableresponses and the impact of repetitionon the variety of product/message-related destructive ideas was examined. The means for the numberof destructive product/message-relatedthoughtsare graphedin the Determine. A one-way evaluation of variancerevealed that these variations in destructive product/message-related ideas weren’t vital, F (2,257) = zero. 5. Thus, the rise in destructive thoughtsacross the three publicity ranges was due primarily to the recipients’ destructive reactions to message repetition, ratherthan to destructive evaluations of message content material. Speculation two issues the impact of a number of message publicity on the technology of topic-irrelevant ideas. Matter-irrelevantthoughts had been outlined as these responses that don’t characterize an analysis of the message arguments or of the advertisementitself. The imply numberof irrelevantthoughts for the one-, three-, and five-exposure ranges was zero. 53, zero. 34 and zero. Three, respectively. The variations in irrelevantthoughtsacross the threeexposurelevels weren’t vital, F (2. 257) = 1. 99. Contraryto the second speculation, it appearsthat message recipientsin the situations did remainactive in attending multiple-exposure to the commercials, ratherthan tuning them out and producing cognitions that had been unrelatedto the message. Relationshipof Cognitive Response to Message Acceptance To look at the relationshipof the cognitive responses generatedby topics on the varied publicity ranges to perspective and buy intention, a number of compensatory
EFFECTS OF TV COMMERCIALREPETITION TABLEI RELATIONSHIPOF COGNITIVERESPONSE AND MESSAGE RETENTION MEASURES TO MESSAGE ACCEPTANCE BY EXPOSURE LEVEL Single publicity Perspective Mannequin 1 Buy intention Three publicity Perspective Buy intention 5 publicity Perspective 61 Buy intention Y2(SA+SB+SAf) – Y. (CA SD + SDf) + Mannequin 2 .327b .323b .481 b ,345b .491 b .236c Y2(SA+SB+SAf+RRP) – Y. (CA. + + SDf+ RRN)eight SD Retention Aided recall Unaided recall .327b .323b .468b ,339b .522b .258c . 021 . zero86 .zero65 . 129 .zero14 . zero10 .028 . 159 .001 . 121 .009 . 081 SAf = Easy Affirmations;SDf = Easy Disaffirmations; RRP = Repetition Associated Optimistic; RRN = Repetition Associated Unfavorable; SA = Help Arguments; CA = Counterarguments; SD = Supply Derogation; SB = Supply Bolsters. bp < zero. 01 Cp < zero. 05 weighting fashions (cf. Wright 1973) had been developed from the cognitive responses. These fashions, that are proven in Desk 1, are primarily based on an underlying assumption that message recipientsprocess cognitive cues in a mannersuch that opposing cues linearly stability one another. These compensatory fashions yield a measure of “internet directionalimpact” of the cognitive mediators.
Mannequin 1 consists of the product/message-related cognitive cues utilizing the distinction between the amountof constructive ideation and destructive ideation engaged in by the message recipients because the predictor of message acceptance. Mannequin 2 provides the repetition-related ideas to the mannequin and incorporatesall of the related cognitions into the cognitive response index. The relationships between the message retentionmeasures(unaidedand aided recall) and attitudeand purchaseintentionwere additionally examined. Easy regressions had been performedusing every mannequin as a predictorof the message acceptancemeasures.
The outcomes of those analyses, which had been performedseparatelyfor every exposurelevel, are proven in Desk 1. This desk reveals that the cognitive response fashions are considerably associated to the message acceptancemeasuresacross all three publicity situations. Nevertheless, the aided and unaided recall scores are usually not relatedto both attitudeor purchaseintentionat any of the publicity ranges. As will be seen in Desk 1, the relationshipof the cognitive response fashions to the attitudinalmeasure of message acceptanceis strongerin the three-exposurecondition than within the single-exposurecondition, as predicated.
Nevertheless, the variations in these correlationsfor the 2 publicity ranges are usually not statistically vital (t = 1. 32, p < zero. 10). 5 Desk 1 additionally reveals that the magnitudeof the relationshipbetween the cognitive response fashions and perspective doesn’t present the hypothesizeddecline between the 5Comparison these correlationcoefficients was made utilizing the folof lowing take a look at statistic: three- and five-exposure situations, however remainsrelatively fixed. The relationshipbetween the cognitive response fashions and buy intention throughout the three publicity ranges can be proven in Desk 1.
The correlationsdo not present the expected improve between the one- and three-exposure situations. There may be an attenuationin the correlationsbetween the three- and five-exposure situations; nonetheless, these variations are usually not vital(t < 1). These outcomes fail to supportthe hypothesizedchanges within the relationshipbetween cognitive and message acceptance throughout the three publicity ranges. Desk 1 additionally indicatesthat variations exist within the relationshipsbetween cognitive response and the attitudinalmeasure of message acceptance and between cognitive response and the purchaseintention measure within the multiple-exposureconditions.
There may be an attenuationin the correlationof cognitive response to message acceptance when buy intention, ratherthan perspective, is the message acceptance criterion. Wright (1973) discovered an identical attenuationbetween cognitive response and a behavioralintentionversus an attitudinal measureof message acceptance. The attenuationfound on this examine could also be as a result of reality thatbehavioralpatternsfor a productsuch as toothpasteare prone to be nicely developed. Thus, favorable or unfavorablecognitive reactionsto the message could also be associated to affective place towards the brand new model, however wouldn’t essentially impression on intentionto purchase the brand new model.
I + Vm 1 Vm I/ ~1 lNm-Three l/2 In – l/2 In 1 I + Vf 1- Vf Three t= Nf- the place Vm and Vf denote the correlationcoefficients for every group and Nm and Nf denote the dimensions of every group. This statistic makes it attainable to check the equalityof two correlationcoefficients utilizing a t take a look at (Kleinbaum and Kupper 1978). 62 THEJOURNAL CONSUMER OF RESEARCH sage argumentsand then growing an attitudetowardthe new model, however ratherwere utilizing the retainedargumentsto help a preformed affective place.
This rationalization could also be particularlyplausible in a low-involvement promoting state of affairs(which one would possibly argue was the case on this examine) the place world have an effect on, somewhat than attribute particular data,providesthe foundation for consumerevaluationand choice making (cf. Olshavskyand Granbois1979; Wright 1976; Zajonc 1980). The 2 views concerning the mediating function of cognitive response recommend differentcausal patternsamong the message acceptance measures and cognitive responses following a number of publicity to a message.
The primary rationalization argues for the traditionalmediatingrole of cognitive responses, whereby the move of causal results originates with repetitionand strikes throughcognitive responses that mediateattitude,which in turnmediatespurchaseintention. The competingexplanationsuggests that the move of results originates with repetition and strikes successively via perspective and buy intention, which in flip influences cognitive response. This causal move suggests thatcognitive in responses, notably the multiple-exposure situations, are the results of preformedaffect towardthe new model.
To look at the 2 competing explanationsof the relationships among the many variables, a testing of other mannequin types was undertaken. The tenabilityof every causal mannequin was examined by attemptingto reproducethe authentic correlationmatrix among the many 4 related variables (repetition, cognitive responses, perspective, and buy intention). Examination of the reproducibility of the unique correlationmatrix supplies proof in supportof a proposed mannequin configuration additionally permits for a comparability and of different alternativeflows.
A techniquedeveloped by Simon (1957) for testing easy linear flows of causation was used to look at the relationshipamong these variables. This techniquefor testing a proposed causal move was utilized by Lutz (1978) in analyzing the relationshipsamong beliefs, perspective, and behavioral intention-a drawback much like the presentone. Simon developed a exact set of predictionsfor the magnitudeof correlationbetween nonadjacent pairsof variables within the hypothesized move of causation, primarily based on noticed correlationsbetween adjoining pairs of variables.
Particularly, the expected correlationbetween any two nonadjacent variables is the same as the product of all of the pairwise correlations between adjoining intervening variables. For instance, within the traditionalcognitive response causal sequence (repetition– cognitive response-> attitude-> intention), Simon’s mannequin would predictthat the straightforward correlationbetween repetitionand intentionwould be equal to the straightforward correlationsof repetitionand cognitive response multiplied by the straightforward correlationof cognitive response and attitudemultipliedby the straightforward correlationof perspective and intention.
Comparisonof predicted and precise correlations supplies a measure of “match” for the theoreticalexplanations being utilized to the information. Whereas this mode of research can not show particularcausal sequence is appropriate, it’s helpful for testing competing explanations. Cognitive Responses: Mediatorsor Productsof Message Acceptance? A fundamental assumptionin utilizing the cognitive response approachto finding out communicationeffects is that the spontaneous ideas generated by the message recipients causally mediate affective reactions to a persuasive message.
The assumptionthat cognitive responses precede and influencethe formationof attitudesand intentionshas been made in most cognitive response research and has been instantly examined in a number of investigations (Cacioppo and Petty 1979; Osterhouse and Brock 1970; Petty and Cacioppo 1977). This examine assumed that cognitive response cues generated by the message recipients mediate the impact of repetition on message acceptance,since subjectsin the multipleexposure situations had the chance to change into acquainted with the message arguments and had loads of time to elaborate cognitively upon them. Thus, the responses generatedby the multiple-exposurecondition topics could be primarily based on the cogency of the message arguments and their reactionsto these arguments,ratherthan on a normal, total impressionof the productand/orcommercial. Proof in supportof this place is obtainable by the robust relationshipbetween cognitive response and perspective within the multiple-exposureconditions. There may be, nonetheless, an alternativehypothesis to the argument that cognitive responses mediate the impact of repetition on message acceptance.
It could be that the ideas producedby the message recipientsare probably not mediating acceptanceof the message, however ratherare a reflectionof the recipient’s affective place towards the product and/or business. A number of research (Tesser and Conlee 1975; Tesser and Cowan 1977) have proven that the opportunityfor thought results in a polarizationof attitudeswhereby affective place turns into extra excessive within the preliminary route. onditionsmay Message recipientsin the multiple-exposure have shaped an attitudetowardthe new brandafter one or two exposures, whereas additional publicity to and reflection upon the message argumentsmay have led to attitudepolarization. Thus, the cognitive responsesproducedby these topics could have been a mirrored image of a beforehand developed and polarized perspective;ratherthan mediatingmessage acceptance,the recipients’responses could thus have supplied cognitive justification for his or her affective place.
This alternativeperspective means that the multipleexposure situation topics weren’t processing the mes- 6Thereis proof that the message argumentswere retainedmore within the multiple-exposureconditions than within the single-exposureconditions. The cell means for the unaidedrecall measurewere 1. 70, 2. 33, and a pair of. 48, whereas the means for the aided recall measure had been 2. 22, 2. 74, and three. 20. An evaluation of varianceperformedon the receptionscores confirmed thatthe impact of repetitionwas vital for each measures, F (2. 257) = 7. 01 and 11. 25, respectively (p < zero. 1). Pairwise comparisons of the cell means, utilizing the Scheffe take a look at, indicatedthat each recall measuresshowed a big improve between the one- and three-exposureconditions (p < zero. 05), however not between the three- and five-exposurelevels. REPETITION EFFECTSOF TV COMMERCIAL TABLE 2 INTERCORRELATIONSOF VARIABLES IN HYPOTHESIZED FLOW OF EFFECTS Cognitive response – 63 TABLE Three PREDICTIONS AND DEGREES OF FIT FOR RELATIONSHIPS AMONG NONADJACENT CAUSAL VARIABLES Levels of match Precise Anticipated Variable Repetition – Perspective – . zero13 . 429 Buy intention . 31 R–CR->Att->PI’ 1. Repetition 2. Cognitive response Three. Perspective four. Buy intention .022 .310 . 692 13 12r23 -. zero13 rl2r23r,. r24= r23r, r14= .031 . 310 R–Att->PIl-CR -. 009 [(-. 022)(. 429)] – . zero06 [(-. 022)(. 429)(. 692)] . 297 [(. 429)(. 692)] In performingthis evaluation, the cognitive response variable was operationalizedby utilizing the compensatoryindex derived from mannequin 1 (Desk 1). Repetition was assigned a worth of 1, Three, or 5, dependingupon exposurelevel. Desk 2 reveals the noticed easy correlationsamong the 4 variablesof curiosity.
Every variableis numberedto facilitate of interpretation Desk Three, which reveals the precise and anticipated correlations amongst nonadjacentpairs of variables for the 2 competing causal flows beforehand described. To match the levels of match of the 2 fashions, a complete discrepancy rating was computed from the correlations proven in Desk Three. Complete discrepancy was operationalized because the sum of absolutely the variations between predicted and precise correlations. Desk Three reveals that the diploma of match was greatest for the standard mannequin, through which cognitive responses mediate message acceptance.
The full discrepancyfor this mannequin was zero. zero55, whereas the overall discrepancy for the competing mannequin was zero. 278. In additionto the 2 fashions beforehand thought of, alternativeorderingsof the cognitive response and message acceptance measures following message repetition had been additionally examined. Nevertheless, none of those fashions performedas nicely as the fundamental cognitive-responses-as-mediatorsmodel. 13 r12r23 r14 =r2r23r34 r24 =r23r34 .031 -. 022 . 429 -. zero15 [(-. 022)(. 692)] -. zero05 [(-. 022)(. 692)(. 310)] . 214 [(. 692)(. 310)] intention aRepetitionrCognitive response-Perspective-oPurchase
DISCUSSION The outcomes of this examine are usually not supportiveof Berlyne’s (1970) two-factor theoretical account of repetition results nor of Cacioppo and Petty’s (1979) two-stage attitudemodification course of mannequin. Neither attitudesnor purchaseintentions had been affected by the extent of advertisingexposure. That is according to the outcomes of otherrepetitionstudies which have didn’t discover a vital essential impact for repetition on these end result measures. The patternof outcomes discovered for the cognitive response measures was additionally inconsistent with theoretical expectations.
The variety of destructive product/message-related thoughtsdid not decline between the one- and three-exposure situations, as had been predicted. The destructive thoughtsvariablealso didn’t parallelthe resultsfound for the perspective and buy intention measures for the oneand three-exposureconditions. This inconsistency, which was additionally discovered by Calder and Sternthal(1980) and, to a lesser diploma, by-Cacioppoand Petty (1980), suggests that there’s not all the time a direct correspondencebetween cognitive response and end result evaluations.
The second stage of two-factortheory and the two-stage attitudemodificationprocess, which predicts a lower in have an effect on and a rise in destructive ideas as a consequence of tedium and reactance, was partially supported. Neither attitudes nor buy intentions confirmed a big decline between the three- and five-exposure situations. Nevertheless, the numerous improve in destructive repetition-related ideas between the three- and five-exposure situations means that reactance to the a number of message exposures did change into extra pronouncedin the excessive publicity situation.
The numerous improve in repetition-related ideas throughout the three publicity ranges is no surprise,however it’s noteworthy. Previous research of repetition and cognitive response haven’t directlyrecognized the likelihood thatrepetition-relatedcognitions would possibly happen because of extreme publicity to a message; as a substitute, they’ve assumed that the recipient’s response to message repetition impacts on extra traditionalcognitive response variables, comparable to or counterarguments favorablemessage-relatedthoughts. From a strategicperspective, these findings have implications for the scheduling of adverising messages, notably over quick time durations. Whereas the publicity ranges used on this examine had been excessive for a one-hour time interval, they don’t seem to be completely inconsistent with precise media schedvalue uling practices. The outcomes recommend that no short-term is gained from addedexposures. Media schedulesthatresult in excessive ranges of message publicity in a restricted time interval run the danger of alienatingthe viewer and will not characterize Althoughcognitive response measures weren’t taken within the examine by Gom and Goldberg (1980), they did discover destructive repetition-related reactions to be commonplace: “Observationof the youngsters prompt that when uncovered to the identical business three or 5 occasions, they grew to become annoyedby the repetitions. Remarkssuch as “Oh no, not once more” or “not anotherone” had been frequent …… . . . (p. 424). ” 64 the simplest expenditureof media budgets.
Nevertheless, ratherthan focusing solely on rapid postexposure reactions, it could be useful to think about the consequences of a number of message publicity over longer time durations, with a view to decide the persistence of constructive or destructive responses. Crandall,Harrison,and Zajonc (1975) discovered that the destructive results of tediumfrom repeatedexposuresmay be solely transitory,whereasthe constructive impact is everlasting. Stang (1974) additionally discovered satiationeffects to be short-lived: a small measurementdelay was extra prone to present constructive results of publicity than a right away measurement.
Analysis much like that of Cacioppo and Petty (1980), which makes use of delayed measures of cognitive response and the attitudechange, is required to completely perceive results of message repetition. Using delayed response measures in analyzing repetition results is mentioned intimately by Sawyer and Ward (1977). The outcomes of this examine are supportiveof different investigations suggesting that cognitive responses mediate postmessage attitudesand buy intentions. Furthermore, this studyoffers furthersupportfor the viabilityof utilizing thought verbalization information in finding out communication results.
Whereas the cognitive response fashions had been able to explaining a significantamountof the variancein attitudeand buy intention, the aided and unaided recall measures didn’t present a big relationshipto message acceptance regardless of the rise in recall scores throughout the three ranges of publicity. These findingsare consistentwith different research which have discovered that stimulus learningis not essentially associated to affective reactions (Cacioppo and Petty 1979; Greenwald1968; Wright19,73).
These resultssupport the argumentthat cognitive cues generatedby the message recipient, ratherthan message arguments, are the first mediatorsof message acceptance. [ReceivedMay 1981. Revised November 1981. ]
RESEARCH THEJOURNAL CONSUMER OF REFERENCES Beaber, R. J. (1975), “The Common Characteristicsof Covert Resistance Mechanisms and Their Relationship to Perspective Change and SpeakerPerception,” Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,Departmentof Psychology, Universityof Southern California. Belch, George E. 1981), “An Examinationof Comparativeand Noncomparative Tv Commercials: The Results of Declare Variation and Repetition on Cognitive Response and Message Acceptance,” Journal of MarketingResearch, 18 (August): 333-49. Berlyne, D. E. (1970), “Novelty, Complexity, and Hedonic Worth,” Notion and Psychophysics, eight: 279-86. Cacioppo, John T. , and Petty, Richard(1979), “Results of Message Repetition and Place on Cognitive Response, Recall and Persuasion,” Journal of Persona and Social Psy97-109. hology, 37 (January): and Petty, Richard, (1980), “Persuasiveness of Communicationsis Affected by ExposureFrequencyand Message High quality: A Theoreticaland EmpiricalAnalysis of Persisting Perspective Change,” in Present Points and Analysis in Promoting, eds. J. H. Leigh and C. R. Martin,Jr. , Ann Arbor: Division of Analysis, GraduateSchool of Enterprise Administration, College of Michigan. Calder, Bobby J. and Sternthal,Brian (1980), “Tv ComProcessingView, ” Journal mercialWearout:An Info of MarketingResearch, 17 (Could): 173-186. Craig, C.
Samuel, Sternthal, Brian, and Levitt, Clark (1976), Evaluation,” Journal “AdvertisingWearout:An Experimental of MarketingResearch: 13 (November):365-72. Crandall, R. , Harrison, A. A. , and Zajonc, Robert B. (1975), “The Permanence of the Optimistic and Unfavorable Results of StimulusExposure:A Sleeper Impact? ,” Unpublishedmanuscript, College of SouthernCalifornia. Ginter, James L. (1974), “An ExperimentalInvestigationof AttitudeChange and Selection of a New Model,” Journal of Mar30-7. keting Analysis, 11 (February): Goldberg, Marvin E. , and Gorn, Gerald J. 1974), “Youngsters’s Reactions to Tv Promoting: An ExperimentalApproach,” Journal of Shopper Analysis, 1 (September): 69-75. Gorn, Gerald G. , and Goldberg, Marvin E. (1980), “Youngsters’s Responses to RepetitiveTV Commercials,” Journal of Shopper Analysis, 6 (March):421-25. Grass, R. C. , and Wallace, Wallace H. (1969), “SatiationEffects of T. V. Commercials,”Journal ofAdvertisingResearch, 19: 47-57. Greenwald, A. G. (1968), “Cognitive Studying, Cognitive Response to Persuasionand AttitudeChange,” in Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, eds.
A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, and T. M. Ostrom, New York: Educational Press. Kleinbaum,David G. , and Kupper,LawrenceL. (1978), Utilized Strategies,North RegressionAnalysis and OtherMultivariable Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press. Krugman,HerbertE. (1962), “An Applicationof LearningTheory to TV Copy Testing,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 26: 626-34. (1965), “The Impactof Tv Promoting:Studying With out Involvement,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 30: 583-96. (1968), “Processes Underlying Publicity to Promoting,” AmericanPsychologist, 23: 11-14.
APPENDIX Pattern Textual content of CommercialMessages Announcingan importantadvance within the science of dental hygiene, new Defend toothpaste with fluorigard. Fluorigard is a brand new stannous fluoride substance developed by a biodental crew at a number one college. Scientific assessments by the American Dental Affiliation have discovered new Defend to be simpler than Crest, the main fluoride toothpaste, in decreasing cavities. These assessments confirmed that Defend, with its patented fluorigardformula, has considerably greater ranges of fluoride exercise than Crest.
Which means Defend spreads sooner whilst you brush, really penetratingand cleansing in between your enamel, the place most cavities happen. And Defend’s fluorigard formulawas additionally preferredin style assessments. Keep in mind, see your dentist commonly and brush usually with new Defend, the one toothpastethat provides your enamel the protectionof fluorigard. REPETITION EFFECTSOF TV COMMERCIAL (1972), “Why Three ExposuresMay Be Sufficient,” Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 12: 11-14. Leavitt, Clark (1974), “Robust Versus Weak Results of Mass Communications:Two Different Hypotheses,” in Buyerl ConsumerInformationProcessing, eds.
G. D. Hughes and M. L. Ray, Chapel Hill, NC: College of North Carolina Press. Lutz, RichardJ. (1978), “A FurtherExaminationof Two Laboratory Exams of the Prolonged Fishbein Perspective Mannequin: Rejoinder,” Journal of Shopper Analysis, four (March): 266-271. McCullough, J. L. , and Ostrom, Thomas (1974), “Repetitionof Extremely Related Messages and AttitudeChange,” Journal of Utilized Psychology, 59 (June): 395-7. Mitchell, Andrew, andOlson, JerryC. (1977), “Cognitive Results of Promoting Repetition,” in Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. four, ed. W. D.
Perreault,Atlanta, GA: Affiliation for ConsumerResearch, pp. 213-20. Olshavsky, Richard W. , and Granbois, Donald (1979), “Shopper Resolution Making-Truth or Fiction,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 7: 331-33. Osterhouse, R. A. , and Brock, Timothy C. (1970), “Distraction Will increase Yielding to Propagandaby Inhibiting Counterarguing,” Journal of Persona and Oocial Psychology, 15: 344-358. Petty, RichardE. , and Cacioppo, JohnT. (1977), “Forewarning, Cognitive Responding, and Resistanceto Persuasion,”Journal of Persona and Social Psychology, 35: 645-55.
Ostrom, Thomas M. , and Brock, Timothy C. (1981), CognitiveResponses in Persuasion, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ray, Michael L. , and Sawyer, Alan G. (1971), “A Laboratory Method for Estimating the Repetition Perform for Promoting Media Fashions,” Journal of MarketingResearch, eight: 20-29. Sawyer, Alan G. (1973), “The Results of Repetition of Refutational and SupportiveAdvertisingAppeals,” Journal of Mar3-33. ketingResearch, 10 (February): (1977), “Repetition and Have an effect on: Current Empirical and
TheoreticalDevelopment,” in Foundationsof Consumerand Industrial Shopping for Habits, eds. A. G. Woodside, J. N. Sheth, and P. D. Bennett, New York: AmericanElsevier. (1981), “Repetition, Cognitive Response and Persuasion,” in Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, eds. R. E. Petty, T. Ostrom, and T. Brock, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,pp. 237-61. 65 , and Ward, Scott (1979), “Carry-OverEffects in Promoting Communication,” in Analysis in Advertising, Vol. II, ed. J. N. Sheth, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 259-314. Silk, Alvin J. , and Vavra, J. G. 1974), “The Affect of Promoting’s Affective Qualities on Shopper-Response,” in Processing, eds. G. D. Hughes Info Purchaser/Shopper and M. L. Ray, Chapel Hill, NC: College of North Carolina Press, pp. 157-86. Simon, H. A. (1957), Fashions of Man, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Stang, D. J. (1973), “Six Theories of Repeated Publicity and Have an effect on,” Manuscript#482, JSAS Catalog of Chosen Paperwork in Psychology, Three: 126. (1975), “The Results of Mere Exposureon Learningand Have an effect on,” Journal of Persona and Social Psychology, 31: 7-13.
Tesser, A. , and Conlee, M. C. (1975), “Some Results of Time and Thought on Perspective Polarization,” Journal of Persona and Social Psychology, 31: 262-70. , and Cowan, C. L. (1977), “Some Attitudinaland Cognitive Penalties of Thought,” Journal of Analysis in Persona, 11: 216-26. Winer, B. J. (1971), Statistical Rules in ExperimentalDesign, New York: McGraw-HillBook Co. Winter, FredrickW. (1973), “A LaboratoryExperimentof Particular person AttitudeResponse to AdvertisingExposure,” Journal of MarketingResearch, 10 (Could): 130-40. Wright, Peter L. 1973), “The Cognitive Processes Mediating Analysis, Acceptanceof Promoting,” Journal of Advertising 53-67. 10 (February): (1975), “Elements Affecting Cognitive Resistance to Promoting,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 2 (June): 1-10. (1976), “An Adaptive Shopper’sView of Attitudesand Different Selection Mechanisms, as Considered by an Equally Adaptive Advertiser,” in AttitudeResearch at Bay, eds. Deborah Johnson and William D. Wells, Chicago American Advertising Affiliation, pp. 113-31. (1980), “Message-Evoked Ideas: Persuasion ResearchUsing ThoughtVerbalizations,”Journal of Shopper Analysis, 2

Order | Check Discount

Tags: 150-200 words discussion with a scholarly reference, 200-300 words response to classmate discussion question, 250 word analysis essay, are dissertation writing services legal, bachelor of nursing assignments